One of the core beliefs of Islam, that Jesus was just a prophet and not the son of god, is Blasphemous to Christianity.
Christian's belief that Jesus is god and Muhammad is just a random guy is Blasphemous to Islam.
The Buddhist belief in reincarnation is Blasphemous to both Islam and Christianity.
So basically, in any non-theocratic state, a law banning Blasphemy quite literally bans all religion, including Islam. Somehow I don't think the Muslims leaders are thinking this through.

Yeah blasphemy would basically mean insulting (vulgar/obscene) religious texts or icons. Burning a Qur'an or Bible would be blasphemy (unless one argued they were trying to legitimately dispose of them, since I think that's actually done through burning), putting Jesus or Muhammad or Buddha in a pornographic film would be blasphemy. The New Testament and the Qur'an differing on theological issues would not be blasphemy. Holy books saying non-believers (people from other religions) will go to Hell would not be blasphemy. A pastor or imam calling each other's religion "infidels" would not be blasphemy.

It's basically just hate speech laws focused on religion. Their idea is to have something like what the United Kingdom does, where a lot of the anti-Islamic cartoons/films would potentially be up for prosecution because they're nothing more than vulgar attempts at inciting hatred against the core parts of a religion (either the founder or the holy book). However, even inciting hatred against a religion's followers wouldn't always be classified as blasphemy (inciting hatred against the religion itself would).

Some crazy Imam tore up a Bible in Egypt and is now being taken to court over it under the same law. The Imam said he welcomes the opportunity to attempt to prove in court that the Bible he burned was not the Bible, as various versions or editions exist. I doubt his argument will get anywhere. On the other hand what would be interesting is how Israel (assuming they respect UN laws, which they don't) would try to pursue insults of Zionism as insults against Judaism when people who typically insult Zionism take painstaking care to make clear they are targeting the 19th-20th century political movement and not the religion. Considering the Looney Toons level of the Israeli PM's display at the UN the other day, I guess we wouldn't be missing out on any good arguments. Also interesting would be that such a UN-wide ruling would require similar arguments to be made to clearly delineate one religion from another. This could put binding UN resolutions on Pakistan to fix their treatment of their Ahmadi minority by recognizing it as its own distinct religion. A ruling which, if accepted in Pakistan, would in and of itself take away most of the religious argument against that faith being an "imposter", can't be an imposter if you're recognized as a separate thing entirely! On the other hand the Ahmadi minority might not want to be treated as a separate religion, even though they would very much desire the protections afforded to them under such a law. In general you'd see a movement to gain recognition for all manner of ideologies under the pretext of religion, bringing about a stranger and more pluralistic/ sort of secularism in the international political arena (where religions are recognized, but with equal right to fair treatment, and any ideology can potentially become a religion). Scientologists would love such an opportunity (though I doubt any assembly in the world would ever vote to recognize them as a religion, but in the absence of such official recognition in the early days of such legislation, they could throw a ton of money at a good team of lawyers to argue for that). EDIT: Imagine if a 'Church of Humanism' becomes recognized as such and insults of Darwin become blasphemy!

EDIT #2: This is the sort of environment that existed under medieval Islamic rule, when they had people of various religions living more or less peacefully with each other under Muslim rule. The government would recognize certain religions and give them their own parallel court system and laws and all that. In fact, the earliest forms of secularism (in Europe no less) were such "perennialist" ideologies put out by Muslim philosophers like Averroes (Ibn Rushd).

The only thing that determines if speech is hateful is the feelings of the victim, which results in non-sense laws, since proving feelings true or false is essentially impossible. The only alternative then is to judge hate speech by majority rule, and then you have COMPLETELY removed the central point of freedom of speech: freedom of minority speech. If "hate" or "obscene" can be defined as whatever the majority thinks, then any speech can be censored.

I think that ever person should have a right to decide for themselves what is hateful and what is not. The idea is that certain speech causes real, physical harm: I agree, but the ideas causing harm could very well be the ones held by the majority. In a society of censorship, they might not even mean foul, they simply have no opposition.

Anyone should be allowed to say what they will. If that speech causes real harm, such as yelling fire in a theater or causing someone to lose their job due to a PROVEN false allegation, or ordering people to murder people, then the speaker can be punished. But harming of one's feelings cannot be illegal in any rational sense.

I disagree somewhat, but only because of how this applies in other cases.

First of all, don't forget about defamation, libel, slander, false advertising, etc. They are all examples of restrictions on free speech that make sure we're honest in dealing with one another.

I would maintain that we need a "hate speech" law to block very limited, very focused kinds of public discourse (I emphasize public, I, in no way, want to go after what you say to your friends in your home, merely what you say to the public at large).

There are certain types of statements that have been shown to have a profoundly negative psychological and physiological impact on people. This is not "I feel insulted", this is a consensus from the psychological health community saying "you've really messed up their head by consistently subjecting them to this kind of statement". This is provable, with evidence (at least as much as anything psychological is provable, but we have precedent for using psychological state, as determined by multiple qualified psychologists, as a basis for legal decisions - you can lose your license, you can be protected from jail time, etc).

If you can show that these statements have such a serious impact on people, then you have the beginnings of grounds to ban those kinds of statements, just like the government bans lots of things for safety reasons. We can get into an agreement on whether or not government should be caring for the safety of the community, but it will explode into a classical liberal vs social liberal debate and I'm firmly on the social liberal side. Governments exist to protect and care for their citizens, this is part of caring.

So, with medical evidence that a statement causes psychological harm in people, you can get it banned. I think that's fair.

Some examples that fit the bill, as far as I'm aware, include death threats and genocidal comments. "I think we should kill all the faggots" is pretty offensive for example. If you're hearing that, throughout the day, it's very damaging to your mind if you're gay. The suicide rates of gay teenagers are a significant bump ahead of their non-gay counterparts and psychologists believe that such negative statements about gays is largely the cause.

Generally, saying bigoted things is pointless. To be clear, when I say bigoted, I mean you're saying very offensive things towards a targeted group of people only because they are that group of people. We have judges and jurors so that they can make the decision what qualifies as offensive and what might qualify as a good exception when it might be appropriate. But, to be honest, how often do you "NEED" to be offensive? If I want to discuss how parts of feminism is starting to put men beneath women, I don't need to say "yo, these bitches are fucked up, fuck feminism, get back in the kitchen, am I right?". I can say, well, exactly what I said before. We can have intellectual discussions about topics without going over the top on the offensiveness.

That said, there is a line of reasonableness here. It's reasonable, I think, for Muslims to expect us not to say "The Prophet was a fucking faggot" and show a picture of him having sex with Jesus. That's simply rude bullshit, and insulting to Muslims period. I think it's unreasonable for them to expect everyone to talk about him with their definition of perfect respect though. We are not all Muslim. A history book should be able to print a picture of him. A cartoonist should be able to draw a caricature of him. We need to remember there is a grey zone between "politically correct" and "offensive" and often things that are in there are fine.

There are lots of examples of how I'll apply this. One good example is Dan Savage (I don't know if TrueReddit knows about Dan). He's often criticized by the trans movement for his "offensive" comments, mostly because he doesn't use the "proper" words. He has never used a rude or offensive word, nor insulted them, he just hasn't been 100% PC. And that's something I don't think you can hold against him. He's not perfect, nor are we, and he writes to entertain (and educate). He needs leeway. We all do.

But we can't go full retard and say "everything is legal, nothing is banned". We just need to be sensible in what we ban and what we don't, and make sure we justify it.

So, to conclude, if you can show actual psychological / physiological harm being caused by a statement (to the satisfaction of the medical community), it should be illegal to say in a public environment (and that includes online, on the radio, on TV, etc). Judges maybe should be able to make exceptions where the speech was unintentional or had purpose behind it and that can be demonstrated.

Also, we should be encouraging people to solve their issues without insulting each other needlessly. I think that's where a lot of these ideas come from. It's no use starting a flame war between both sides. Have intelligent discussions and fix problems.

I think that there are two kinds of people who protest that conclusion. One are the bigots who want their right to keep hating on each other. Two are people who are fearful it would go too far and ban their right to criticize anything.

To the bigots: please educate yourselves more on the impact of your bigotry.

To the fearful: this kind of thing needs checks and balances, yes, but as long as you are only banning hateful statements and not actual, rational criticize presented without hate, then you should be fine.

On this motion in particular, I think it's ridiculous for the reasons given above. What is and is not blasphemous changes between religions and even sects of the religion. We can't outlaw ALL of it, because then the hard-core Catholics will be suing those who get divorces and talk about them (as just one example of how it could go too far).

A more reasonable motion is to get the UN to confirm the right of people to choose a religion/faith freely (or choose to not choose a religion) and to make it a universal right for everyone. Include in it that discriminating based on religion (or lack thereof) is not allowed. Also include that hate speech against a particular religion (or lack thereof) is not allowed. Concretely define hate speech in that motion.

I left a comment before I read your whole thing and I deleted it. Now I've read the whole thing and I think we probably won't ever agree on this, but I want to offer some criticisms of your arguments. Most of my argument will center around the "chilling effect", so if you don't know what that is, I would encourage you to read about it a bit before continuing. I'm on my phone but I if I wasn't I'd link to the Wikipedia page. Basically, an example of this would be football (either one). If you were to make a heat map of where players spend the most of their time, you'd probably be able to mark the out of bounds lines just by the very cool color of the map around the edges. If there were no chilling effect, you would not see the pattern present itself this way. The chilling affect causes players to stay away from boundaries. Within the realm of law, behaviors that would be considered legally dubious (not obviously illegal, but possibly or questionably or certainly legal but appears illegal and its impossible to prove otherwise) are "chilled", so to speak. So, in your scenario, where horrific, horrible indefensible speech and only that speech is banned, I cant help but feel like a lot of self-censorship will take place (the worst kind, because it leaves no evidence usually), especially ideas and speech that would be considered only possibly illegal. And I think it would lead to a situation where that grey area grows, and people self-censor even things that would be considered unambiguously legal out of a desire to to avoid the appearance or accusations of breaking the law. When someone offers a particularly harsh, though honest and not hateful criticism of a particular group, instead of calls to boycott them, there would be calls to throw them in prison. And we all know that every law is from time to time levied unfairly against someone. Take a look at Monday night football earlier this week. As a Packer fan, I recall vividly when the pass interference rule was unfairly levied against Matt Shield's, when the call should have been against the Seahawks, leading to a first down off 3rd and 37, instead of resulting in a desperate 4th down play. Someone may say something almost everyone agrees should be legal, but are put in prison anyway. People can't really preempt bad application of other laws, but this one they can through self censorship. The world needs harsh criticisms of Mohammad and Marx and Jesus, and people shouldn't gave to worry about being thrown into prison or fined because some people think they went too far. The world needs artists that express how much they hate religion or how much it torments them. The world needs freedom of expression, not from it. I say this as Christian- there is not true faith in God if you are shielded from His critics. There is no true love of God if hate of God is silenced. There is nothing anyone can say about my God that would make me want to have men with guns throw them behind bars. And this is the ultimate reason for freedom of speech- without it, there is no freedom if religion, freedom of thought or freedom of the soul. So in my opinion, it needs to be absolute.

Chilling effect or not, if human beings won't take it upon themselves to respect others with whom they share the planet, then it's up to legislation to force them to do it before civil society disintegrates into chaos. Women deserve not to be harassed at work. Small people deserve not to be discrimated against anywhere they work or live. Gays, blacks, hispanics, all deserve not to be treated differently than everyone else by landlords, employers, or the government. The consequences of these anti-hate laws go a long ways to help society as a whole, and any chilling effect on speech is outweighed by the fact that it lends societies to be more respectful of others and produce more peace, and less need for legal intervention. When people believe their hateful speech is approved of by the majority, more engage in it. Look at anti smoking laws as one example. In the 1950's, everyone believed smoking was cool and now the majority thinks its' stupid. What is the difference? Laws that increasingly push back against those who infringe on the rights of non smokers. Womens rights, civil rights, gay rights, and eventually RELIGIOUS RIGHTS will all follow the same course, if people are to live together without infringing upon one another in daily life. Just because smokers are able to prove a medical affect of infringment and people harassed by hate speech are not, doesn't make hate speech any less harmful to them as human beings. Psychological impact and physical impact are too similar to ignore.

It is true, perhaps, that gays are affected by poor treatment. However, the correct solution is not a legal, but a social one. I have no problems with convincing someone who belives that gays should die through reason, or simply through shunning.

On the subject of personal vs public, I would disagree completely. Public speech is where the speaker really puts himself in danger, allows himself to be publicly ridiculed and hated himself. If a person announces that gays should all die, they will be called out and publicly refuted by so many more.

Also, do we ban people talking hatefully about criminals? About members of the other political parties? About people who murdered their family? Yes, it is encouraging hate, but such an action is only really evil if it causes evil action.

What is being claimed here is protection from hateful speech by those who are proclaimed "unworthy" of hate by virtue of being a majority, of being supposedly innocent by our current societal morals.

I have yet to see a reason why I would want give up my right to decide what is hate speech or not to a censor. Nor a valid argument why people's feelings being protected is more important then the free flow of information and opinions.

Because people lack free will and autonomy to listen to all possible speech and make their own choice. Yes, a violent protestor might have made that choice based on speech, but the choice is still his to make, and the responsibility for the violence he commited his own to bear. I do not wish to sacrifice my ability to make my own decisions on what is truth and who to listen to just because some people make poor choices based on the same speech.

Hate speech laws apply to case when people are being hateful over an innate (or culturally embedded) characteristic, such as race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity or religion. You seem to take the term "hate-speech" literally, to mean all speech that is hateful. This is incorrect.

In a perfect world, one country can not demand another to stop blasphemy, because that is not respectful of countries that believe in free speech. That said, a free speech country can indeed teach its citizens that it is respectful not to blaspheme other religions than the one the citizen grew up with. America has stopped teaching respect for others, and this needs to be changed. Some muslim countries believe they can dictate what America does, this also needs to be changed. Discussion is good, definitely, and all parties need to be educated about the other. Voluntary change of one's actions to be more respectful of other countries and religions is also good, on both sides of this equation. However, demanding laws against blasphemy are returning to the ages of the Spanish inquisition and are never going to be successful on a global scale. LIkewise, westerners demanding that certain Muslim countries embrace Western free speech is also never going to be successful on a global scale. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

Not really. In the modern day it would be because of technology carrying audio/video everywhere and how connected we are.

In the old days when empires overtook one another, the losing empire was completely gone and the structure in question was completely immersed by people of the other faith. Like Muslim Spain, although that was also a product of a concerted ethnic/religious cleansing attempt by the Catholics (Inquisition) who purposely went around destroying things and killing people. Already so much offense was taken at losing an entire land or region and everything that entails (including forced conversions often). Re appropriating a Mosque or Church for another religion was the least of anyone's concerns.

On the other hand some religious structures continue to hold meaning. The Hagia Sofia isn't as valuable to Christians as the Temple Mount is to Jews and some Jews want to raze the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock to rebuild their temple there, even after all these years (the Crusaders didn't even do that).

Both quran and the bible say that I will go to hell after I die. I find that deeply offensive and blasphemous, as The Flying Spaghetti Monster clearly revealed that I will go to heaven with a beer volcano. Can I demand for a punishment of everyone who claims that the quran is the one true book?

Wouldn't it be wonderful to have somebody agree with these Muslim states and say "Yes, we shall ban blasphemy! This is a great idea!" and then that nation bans Islam on the count of blasphemy? I think it would get a point across at least to some people.

Unfortunately it is clearly not feasible, and it is dangerous as that nation may become a target for terrorist attacks, but it would make for great world drama!

This is all just posturing on part of pakistan. Pakistan needs to keep a very loud obnoxious minority of religious crazies in the country happy and this is one way of doing it. The law will never pass it and if it does no one will give a shit because we don't follow any of the thousands of other worthless laws here.

Basically every Muslim blasphemes against Christianity. They obviously have a double standard as they would never want to be forced not to criticize Christianity, burn and bomb churchs in the Middle East, etc.

Christians, too, have this double standard. Just look at the health care debate in the US: somehow, requiring secular insurance companies to pay for birth control is religious persecution against Catholics. Christians expect the US government to outlaw gay marriage because it somehow limits their right to practice their religion, completely ignoring the fact that those same laws infringe upon a homosexual's right to free expression. Religion is the worst kind of paradox: tell everyone how much you believe in peace and love until they disagree with you, then attack them with hate and violence until they relent.

I get so sick of people running around bad mouthing religion when they dont even understand what religion is. It is merely a series of ideas meant to lead you towards peace and happiness. What you do with these ideas are your own choice.

Martin Luther's take on Christianity basically separated the church entirely from secular matters. For example this wiki on his doctrine of the two kingdoms explains he thought government had no role enforcing spiritual law.

Martin Luther is a genius. This needs to be read and practiced more widely. It's interesting in that it would seem not to support theocracies at all. It also seems to speak against evangelizing your religion, or having your religion dictate to non-believers (or your children) what to believe. He was a wise man.

I have to disagree. Read Sam Harris to get a better perspective on this, but supporting a religion that you disagree with is not only disingenuous, but dangerous in some cases. Why does one need religion if one can see that the only good parts of it are the humanistic values?

Probably several, but I'm not an encyclopedia of world religions. As unpopular as it is to say this though, our ideas about human rights, social interactions, and even what is a recognizable marriage have recognizable origins in Western culture. It is of course debatable exactly how much comes from Christianity as defined separately from Greek philosophy, but what we consider completely secular, universal values still arose from a particular tradition.

You sound like C. S. Lewis, who believed there must be a god simply because men had morals. However, even he acknowledged that similar ideas of right and wrong developed across the globe before the advent of Christianity, which destroys the idea that morals are the result of Christian thought. It really looks to be the reverse. Of course, you could say that god was working behind the scenes in all of these cultures, but that's a huge supposition with no base.

Not to sound too antagonistic, did you read my other comments in this thread? If you did, and you still thought that like Lewis, I was suggesting that morals, as an objective... things all derived from Christianity then I apologize for being unclear. What I'm suggesting is that a culture which was perpetuating a particular system of values and beliefs decided that its own values were objectively "moral" and then looked around the world cherry picking similar values and beliefs which were also judged to be moral. Things which were different were not.

Have the values of the culture in my example changed over time? Of course, but they're still originating from that culture and not a mythical, universal source of objectivity.

Edit: And by values, I don't mean thing "don't kill." Which actually does seem to be pretty universal for humans. I mean more abstract things, like ideas about how many people are allowed in a marriage and stuff like that.

As with all religions, Christianity is fuzzy enough that anything can claim its origins in it. For example, the Bible was used both for and against slavery. So claiming such and such comes from Christianity is pretty hard to support because the same religion can usually be used to justify the exact opposite.

Plus, women's rights are in opposition to most major world religions, so there's that.

I'm not talking about specific issues and whether or not they are supported in the Bible so much as I'm saying that the entire way we frame these issues grew out of a culture that was majority Christian (Western Europe as opposed to say, Japan or India) and thus our ideas about everything from "what is a religion" on down are defined in a way that would probably be different had the discussion begun elsewhere.

the entire way we frame these issues grew out of a culture that was majority Christian

When you phrase it that way, yeah, but it grew out of the culture, not out of Christianity itself, that is to say the religion formed around the culture, not the other way around. In other areas the same thing happened: religions thrive on popularity, so they appeal to the lowest common denominator, and until they achieve power, try to please as many as they can. See: the date of major Christian holidays and the various local customs that were incorporated into the religion.

PS: I see now why you though I was following you. I assure it's just a coincidence.

"Religion makes people intolerant, prejudiced, and rude. Stupid religious people." Surely this kind of statement (common though it is on this site) isn't exactly a bastion of logical consistency either, is it?

While I see the hypocrisy you are pointing out, I feel the need to point out that I have yet to see a religion that hasn't been politicized. I realize it's possible for a person to be religious without being intolerant or prejudiced, but I can't understand why anyone intelligent enough to see through such rhetoric (gays are evil, evolution is the devils work, other beliefs are blasphemous, etc.) can't see that you can't pick and choose which part of a religion you support. Just because you may not believe in some of the more extreme ideals of your religion doesn't mean that the support you give to your faith won't be used to promote those ideals. So while the individual may not be intolerant, the religion they support invariably is on some level.

But what does a world look like where everyone in power thinks that Muslims just want to bomb everyone?

I'm not sure how you get that from this post, or even this thread. My point is that it doesn't matter what religion you subscribe to, they're all biased against the others, and they're all trying to force their beliefs on everyone else. The only way to fix that is to remove all religions, to stop pandering to one or the other because it threatens economic consequences or violence. It's time for free thinking, intelligent people to stand up and say no, we will not let you force your outdated, irrelevant belief systems on us any more. You're right that the rhetoric needs to stop, because that helps no one. But the sooner the conversation becomes action, the better off we'll all be.

In one case, I see a minority group within one country voicing its opposition to national policies. In the other, I see religious views that are codified into national laws, some with extremely harsh penalties, and followed by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. How comparable are these situations?

To be fair, there are non-Trinitarian forms of Christianity. Whether or not this counts as actual Christianity is debatable, however, since most of the major sects define belief in the Trinity as central to the religion.

According to wikipedia, Unitarian, Arian, and Adventist are non-Trinitarian, but you're right I should have used the past tense (although I think it mostly died out before the first pope). I was mostly being sort of contrary and highlighting that Christianity is not quite as monolithic as we sometimes pretend it is. Especially here on reddit, where every Christian is a fundamentalist evangelical protestant from the US South.

Answer: In the Quran, Christians are often referred to as among the "People of the Book," i.e. people who have received and believed in previous revelation from God's prophets. There are verses that highlight the commonalities between Christians and Muslims, and other verses that warn Christians against sliding towards polytheism in their worship of Jesus Christ.

Commonalities:

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed" (61:14).

Warnings:

"If only they [i.e. Christians] had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil" (5:66).

"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs" (4:171).

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (9:30-31).

To be honest, the Jews are being quite the cunts for quite some time now. Did you watch the video yesterday where a representative is encouraging false flag attacks on Iran by the US, to try to bludgeon the people into the war that they want?

If blasphemy is illegal, then talking shit about atheists, talking about hurting or murdering atheists, speaking about atheism as being immoral or any other hate speech directed towards non-believers should also be illegal. This makes the related passages in the Bible and the Koran illegal as well.

It has to do with the succession stuff. When Mohammed died, someone needed to be the head of the religion. Two camps formed; Sunnis, who felt that the new head (the Caliph) should be elected to office by his peers, and Shia's, who believed that leadership should by passed down directly to someone in his family (specifically his cousin, Ali bin Abu Talib). Of note, Sunnis are the overwhelming majority today, in the 75-90% range of the global population.

No they do not represent you, they represent Islam. And if you are saying you are a muslim then yes you should be like them. I'm saying this as an exmuslim myself, did you forget what the companions of mo and the caliphs did to anyone that blasphemed Islam? Islam strictly prohibits freedom of speech and don't even lie to yourself saying it does not. If you even jokingly say 'That fucker Mohammed' you are not considered a muslim anymore.

I would have loved to reference this but I'm writing from my ipad. If you deny this though I will try to find some verses - of many - that encourage Jihad against nations for the sole reason of blasphemy and "trolling".

And what happened to them if they didn't want to accept this "wisdom"? What is the true stance of Islam towards apostates who reject Islam entirely and think that it is retarded? Are they left alone, entirely to their own responsibility? Is there 100% acceptance towards opposing views? If not, fuck you, sir.

And what happened to them if they didn't want to accept this "wisdom"?

Nothing, because the non-Muslims were the ones with the power during the time period we're speaking of.

What is the true stance of Islam towards apostates who reject Islam entirely and think that it is retarded? Are they left alone, entirely to their own responsibility?

Pretty much. The early Muslim nations even practiced this view. Non-Muslims were allowed to live in peace. It is every man's personal choice to choose what to believe. It is physically impossible to force someone to believe something. All you can do is educate. That's the entire point of free will, is it not?

Is there 100% acceptance towards opposing views?

What does this even mean? No one has 100% acceptance to opposing views. Atheists love to talk about how skeptical they are, yet few, if any, are skeptical of their own beliefs. Everyone believes that their own point of view is correct. Some people are open-minded enough to realize that they may be wrong (hint: atheists are no more likely than religious people to be among this category, while those who self-describe as agnostic pretty much fit the bill exactly), but even these people believe that their own view is correct.

If you mean that one should not persecute those with opposing views, Islam as a doctrine prohibits people from persecuting others for their beliefs. Despite this, people still persecute others for their beliefs. Early Muslims were persecuted heavily for their beliefs. Minority groups of any sort always end up persecuted to some degree. Unfortunately, this is simply part of human nature and is unlikely to ever change. It's quite disingenuous to single out any specific group as persecutors when the same accusation could be leveled against mankind.

Atheists love to talk about how skeptical they are, yet few, if any, are skeptical of their own beliefs.

Atheism by use and definition isn't a belief.

"A - without, Theism - belief in god" It's a lack of belief.

So it's super easy to be sceptical about your lack of belief. "Why don't I believe in god? - Because I haven't seen enough convincing evidence for believing in one", See? It's easy so you don't need anything more than that to be one. Now there's lots to be sceptical of when it comes to religions though with all the crazy shit they claim.

Jesus Christ, what did I do to the words in that post? Anyway, thanks for the links. This gives me a clear legal boundary to work with.

The moral boundaries, however, will never be so clear cut. I imagine is something north of /r/SRS (Freedom of speech < my touchy teenager feelings) and south of /r/Libertarian (Freedom of speech > Everything else)

Then today's your lucky day, because you get one (from me). I think it's ridiculous to try to outlaw blasphemy, and the countries that are trying to "bully" others into following their lead are in no position to make such demands in the first place.

Also, while I believe that what I believe is true and that there's strong evidence for it, I also believe that it's not unreasonable for someone else to come to a different conclusion with the evidence they've been presented. Trying to prevent people from having a discussion only shows your own insecurities.

Religious people who want blasphemy laws enacted are trying to claim a special status in society wherein they can say anything they want about those whom they consider sinners and unbelievers, while at the same time being protected against any response they deem as blasphemy.

I don't think that pointing this out to them will get them to see the light, unfortunately.

This is so retarded. The muslim world needs to grow a ballsack and learn how to deal with the words and actions of others. THE WHOLE WORLD does not need to bend over backward because muslims are choosing to be a bunch of fussy babies about this shit.

Well said, I wish to believe that most people on this subreddit would be here due to their concern over such comments as OP's being the norm on reddit, while looking for genuine, thought-provoking ideas and discussions. Unfortunately it seems there is no self-selection bias for a quality internet.

I think the function of something like "blasphemy" is to keep believers from straying from their path -- not to inspire them to attack non-believers. I don't even understand how someone who does not profess the faith of X religion could be considered to have blasphemed when they are not an adherent of said tenets of X religion. It's like saying you're a failure as a sushi chef because you cook French food. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel said that "the essence of blasphemy is confusion." I hope those calling for blasphemy laws can catch a glimpse of their own confusion.

If someone can speak out against non believers in such violent ways like "behead those who insult the prophet", why can't non believers speak their opinion? I don't think the fanatics are thinking this through very well.

I consider myself pretty open-minded and tolerant of just about anything, but I have reached my limit with this religious nonsense. Why? It's starting to affect me, and I refuse to participate. When you start passing laws telling me that I can't speak about it, it's time for me to push back for the first time ever.

I'm sure I'm not alone. How can I say this without breaking the forum rules, or hurting anyone's precious feelings?

the novel, which is a fine one, is not, in fact, blasphemous by any reasonable definition.

It's a great book but very blasphemous. I've read it a long time ago but I remember bits about Muhammad changing his mind about how many prayers people should do a day and whether any of the older gods should still be worshiped.

here's a thought: if I am willing to say something that offends you, then inherent in that is that I presume that you are enough of a person that you can speak up and defend your position, that you have enough spine to weather my blows, or at least the fuck try. It IS respectful! If I think you are such a spineless faltering wreck that I don't dare push your buttons, then...I obviously don't respect you at all.

and if your god is such a wuss that he needs you to back him up, then, shit. hell, if your god has any enemies or fears at all, then toss that shit.

So if America is by default a Christian nation then Jesus Christ would be the only way to eternal salvation. Following Islam would be blasphemy. So... Muslims. Have you really thought this through? Also fuck your god whomever it may be.

Yes, I'll grant you that not all Muslims are "like this"; I am even willing to concede that a majority are most probably not, based on the perhaps naive belief that the majority of any group simply wants to live their lives in peace, raise their kids, hang out with their friends, and maybe create something beautiful once in a while.

However, it is beyond disingenuous to pretend that the guy holding up the "Death to Your Freedom of Speech" banner isn't a "real" Muslim, or that suicide bombers and other assorted terrorist sewage aren't "real" Muslims. They are; and they are increasingly becoming the most prevalent face of Islam (just as the certifiably insane elements of the Religious Right are becoming the most prevalent face of Christianity in the US).

I am not anti-religious; I do believe that many doctrines are inherently harmful and all in all it seems like far too personal an issue to discuss on a busy street corner, but I am all for the notion of "live and let live." But such notions must work both ways - and I'm afraid that (at least here in the US) we are becoming so politically correct that we are allowing the extremist elements to walk all over our own freedoms.

So - no, not all Muslims are like this. But there are way, way too many who are, and the gentle tsk-tsking of the "real" Muslims is very much being drowned out by the howls of the vocal extremists.

He wasn't saying that the guy holding up a "Death to Free Speech" sign or burning an American flag isn't a real or a true Muslim. He was saying that not all Muslims are like that. There is an enormous difference between these two statements.

So while it may be disingenuous to pretend that angry protesting Muslims are not true Muslims, attacking that line of thought in a response to what he wrote is a clear straw man.

The "No True Scotsman" doesn't apply here, because that's not what I'm saying.

It's a case of grouping together people who have no affiliation with another group. In the scotsman scenario, it's simple to state that the sctosman did it. I am not denying that these are Muslims are against free speech. I am saying to simply call all Muslims a problem is horrible, because many Muslims are good people, who disgaree just as strongly about this subject as you do.

Think of a group that you belong to. Whether that be a race, a belief, etc. Now imagine that 30% of that group started bombing innocent people. Should we call an end to that group, or go after the specific people that are doing the bombings?

Imagine that you belong to a group of people (group X) and group X believes that another group of people (group Y) are wrong and that they will be punished by hell.

If only 30% of group X decide to commit murder, the reason for their murder is still predicated on the beliefs that are held by the entire group. This means that the philosophies of the group can be linked as a causal factor to the aforementioned murder and that group should either 1.) stop believing that thing or 2.) stop existing.

Use the same scenario for something like the KKK, not all of the KKK members are murderers but they all hold and value ideas which can lead to murderous behavior so it's fair to say that we would like there to be no members of the KKK. The same is true with Islam.

Should the same have been said about Chrristinaity during the Crusades? That all Christians should have been 1. forced to stop believing or 2. killed?

Your belief that Muslims should either be forced to stopped believing or be killed is horrible ad hypocritical. There are very clear similarities of the sect of Islam's belief to stop free speech to your belief that these Islasmic believers should either be forced to stop believing or be killed.

The Muslims' belief: Free speech should be put to an end.
Your belief: This sect of Islam should be put to an end.

The same conclusion comes to both parties: If this does not, simply make sure the people of the belief no longer exist.

You're just as bad as those wishing to end free speech. They have every right to state their belief, as free speech entails.

I think you're drawing some assumptive conclusions. I do not believe that anyone of any religion should be forced to stop believing or be killed; I do believe that the religions themselves should be squeezed out by thoughtful debate, intelligence, and science. Just because I don't believe something or want you to believe it doesn't mean that I want to kill you for it. That seems to be a market that is largely populated by the religious.

They do have every right to state their beliefs, however if their beliefs are wrong then someone should tell them so and furthermore someone should work to point how how wrong their beliefs actually are and how damaging those beliefs are. The same is true of Christianity and Judaism. Now, I don't want to go around killing people who believe differently than I do like you assume, but just because I'm not a murderer or a tyrant doesn't mean that I should tolerate any religion or belief system which includes in any amount that it's okay to kill people because they believe differently than you do.

Fair enough, i overreact. I don't personally believe that a religion should be abolished because it's 'wrong', because I don't believe that can be conclusively proven. however, I do respect your opinion on the matter, now.

I can. My best friend is one of these people, and so is his entire family. They're more tolerant of other's beliefs and viewpoints than most Christians I know. Not only that, but my hometown has plenty of Muslims, and many of them are tolerant as well. Get your head out of your ass, not everyone is like that.

If anything, you are the type of person that you spout that you're against.

Perhaps you've found the only enclave of "rational Muslims" in the entire world. My moms' best friend was/is a Muslim, and I can't say the same for her or any of her family. I dated a Muslim guy way back - for 4 years, and I can't say the same for him or any of his friends. I come across Muslims on a daily basis and am affronted by their 'faith'. So perhaps, you and your best friend can mount a travelling road show to educate those of us with our heads up our asses on how the world can be filled with peace and love and rainbows and bunnies.

Honestly, you're just an intolerant, biggoted, asshole, and you have all of the same qualities as those people wishing to end free speech, because you're just as willing to end their way of life as they are yours. You're not any better than those sect of people are.

Call me all the names you want (see, I don't want to end free speech) and also I'm not 'willing to end their way of life' (goodness, you're really pulling stuff out of thin air here) - but I see no harm in recognizing what 'their' agenda is.

But you need to understand: you just called many people close to me irrational for their religious beliefs. I pulled my responses out of the air not because of you particularly, but because I've been responding to people who have implied that they'd like to end islamic free speech. I simply didn't notice your username, and for that, I apologize. I had assumed I was talking to the same person.

I am even willing to concede that a majority are most probably not, based on the perhaps naive belief that the majority of any group simply wants to live their lives in peace, raise their kids, hang out with their friends, and maybe create something beautiful once in a while.

oh how generous of you. Thanks for sharing your carefully nuanced assessment of the Muslim world that highlights the guy holding the "death to freedom of speech" sign. Are you kidding me?

You want people to look up no true scotsman? Here, I have one for you:

Really, it's got less to do with the religious doctrine and more to do with the amount of brainwashing going on. Islam, like Catholicism, are ultimately peaceful religions. But of course, people always seek for opportunities to gain power and control over peers. Religion is used as a tool and excuse to achieve it, thus making it say things that it does not really say. (Example: nowhere in the quran does it say women should wear burqas.)

You should be careful about the us/them mentality you are displaying here. It encourages hate, hinders rational thought and discourages the search of understanding necessary to any problem resolution process.

referring to people growing up in countries where propaganda is rampant, access to access to education is difficult, access to *unbiased education is close to impossible.

I have to disagree. The modern day practitioners of these religions might be peaceful, but the religions themselves were born of violence and subjugation. Only in our modern day enlightenment have we embraced the peaceful aspects of those religions.

If you want to be peaceful, you can find parts of any holy text to justify being peaceful. If you want to kill all non-believers, you can find passages for that as well.

I suppose placed next to the Norse religions, or other Pagan beliefs, Christianity and Islam would appear peaceful. However, that's like saying one murderer is peaceful as other murderers killed more than him. It's a lesser evil situation. I believe this has more to do with the people than the beliefs though. Once people have become enlightened enough to see their religion for what it is (violent, backwards, etc...), they convert to something else. I think the emergence of atheism in this modern age is a part of this ongoing process.

Christianity, as based on the New Testament, does NOT include violence in any part of its theology; in fact, it is specifically opposed to violence of any kind, even to the point of loving one's enemies and dying for another. On the other hand, The perfect practice of Islam does include violence, as based on its theology in the
Qur'an. I'm certainly not saying all Muslims include this in their daily life, but the premise is built into the doctrine. Read it for yourself.

Christianity, as based on the New Testament, does NOT include violence in any part of its theology

I believe Jesus talked about stoning disobedient children. The new testament also introduced the concept of eternal hell. I believe the above statement to be patently false. As a former semenary student, I'm more than familiar with the Bible. I'm also well read in the Mormon holy texts (The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and The Doctrine and Covenants), the Qur'an (though less than others) and the Torah. I've also read many other religious books from crazy crystal crunching new age stuff to satanic worship and witchcraft. Christianity can be used to justify any violence, most Christians choose not to do that though.

Placed in their historical context, major religions tend to prone a more peaceful way of life than what was practiced then. I was reading up an interesting book on that subject but I fail to remember the name... I'll ponder that information and get back to you....

And yes, scriptures do have less peaceful passages as well and my best guess is that it is a reflection of the time's way of thinking but again, I need to find my source on this...

I think that your speculations are correct in the context of comparison to other religions of the times. Islam was once the beacon of civilization, but compared to today's first world nations, they would be considered utterly barbaric.

If you look at religion anthropologically, you can see how benefits provided by a belief that are advantageous help to further propagate that belief system. It's the same way environmental pressures guide biological evolution. Peaceful tendencies are advantageous in most situations, and those peoples that practice peace are rewarded with more successful cultures. Many food preparation rituals have simular benefits.

As an atheist, I would argue that Islam and Christendom both have a history of violence. One could argue that if other religions had gained majority in the first millennium we would have perhaps seen higher levels of religious violence, and I don't think I'd disagree. But when you compare the willingness to commit violent acts against another group of peoples, the religious are often more willing than secular non-theists to engage in violence. I think it has something to do with the fact that if you believe non-believers are going to hell, what could you possibly do to them that would piss off god? Since god himself is going to lay into them hardcore once they die anyways...

This is merely my opinion however, backed up by my own anecdotal personal experience...

That's nonsense eugenics rhetoric. Just look at the places where fundamentalist beliefs and calls for patriarchical theocracy thrive. The common denominator is poverty. People who feel like they are in a shit hole they cannot escape cling to authoritorian expressions of religion. The way to get rid of it is the fix the underlying problems. To get back to your stupid point about out-breeding: For emigrated muslims that ended up in western countries, their birth rate balances out to be just about on par with the indigenous population. High birth rates also thrive in those same places with a low standard of living.